IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. ELIJA ALLEN DOSS, Appellant. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: March 10,2014 o K coo zz. -Her •** S'0 •Xf ' 'o 

## DIVISION ONE ° >Jm No. 69462-6 »x> o^> —*o en o~

Dwyer, J. — Elija Doss appeals from the superior court's order amending hisjudgment and sentence entered following remand. In a previous appeal, we affirmed Doss's convictions but remanded the cause to the superior court to correct Doss's sentence so as not to exceed the applicable statutory maximum. Atthe remand hearing, Doss challenged, for the first time, the trial court's calculation ofcredit for time served granted at his sentencing. Doss argues in this appeal that the trial court erred by denying his request for additional credit. Because the trial court did not exercise independentjudgment in complying with the remand order, Doss's appeal presents no reviewable claim of error. We
affirm.
I InApril 2010, Doss pleaded guilty to three counts ofdomestic violence 

### felony violation of a court order. The trial court sentenced Doss to concurrent 60-No. 69462-6/2 month terms ofconfinement and also imposed a community custody term of 12 

### months. The trial court additionallygave Doss 166 days of credit for time he 

### served injail priorto sentencing. Dossdid not raise any objections to this calculation at the sentencing hearing. 

### Doss appealed thejudgment and sentence to this court. State v. Doss, noted at 168Wn. App. 1048, 2012WL 2377816, at *1. We affirmed the convictions, but determined that the combined terms ofincarceration and 

### community custody exceeded the five-year statutory maximum. Doss, 2012 WL 2377816, at *1. As a result, weremanded the cause to thetrial courtto correct Doss's sentence by either amending the community custody term or 

### resentencing Doss consistentwith applicable statutory authority. Doss, 2012 WL 2377816, at *1. 

### Atthe hearing on remand, Doss attempted to challenge, for the first time, thetrial court's award ofcreditfor time served. He argued that he was entitled to 

### 20 additional days ofcreditfor time hespent participating in King County's 

### Community CenterforAlternative Programs (CCAP). He also sought 5 

### additional days ofcreditfor time served injail priorto sentencing. The trial court refused to address orrule onthis issue. Thecourt noted that, in his first appeal, 

### Doss could have challenged thecourt's credit award, butthat hedid notdo so. In its order amending thejudgment and sentence, thetrial court struck 

### Doss's term ofcommunity custody and ordered that all other sentence conditions
remain in full effect. Doss appeals.
-2-No. 69462-6/3

Doss asserts that the trial court on remand erred by failing to grant his request for additional credit. In so contending, Doss argues that applicable statutory authority entitles him to credit for the 20 days he participated in CCAP and for the 5 days he served in jailbefore sentencing. Because this claim of error is not properly before us, we will not consider the merits of Doss's contention. Generally, a defendant is barred from raising issues in a subsequent 

### appeal that were or could have been raised on a previous appeal. State v. Mandanas. 163 Wn. App. 712, 716, 262 P.3d 522 (2011). An exception to this rule is found in RAP 2.5(c)(1), which provides: Ifa trial court decision is otherwise properly before the appellate 

### court, the appellate court may at the instance of a party review and determine the propriety of a decision of the trial court even though a similar decision was not disputed in an earlier review ofthe same
case. 

### UnderRAP 2.5(c)(1), an issue that was not raised in an earlier appeal becomes an "appealablequestion" only if "thetrial court, on remand, exercised its independentjudgment" to review and rule again on the issue. State v. Barberio, 121 Wn.2d 48, 50, 846 P.2d 519 (1993). Thus, the permissive 

### language in RAP 2.5(c)(1) gives thetrial court discretion whetherto revisit an issue that was not the subject of an earlier appeal. Barberio, 121 Wn.2d at 51. 

### Only ifthe trial court chooses to reconsider the issue can the appellatecourt decide whether to review the trial court's decision regarding that issue. Barberio,
121 Wn.2dat51. Doss is not entitled to review under RAP 2.5(c)(1). On remand, the trialNo. 69462-6/4

court expressly declined to consider Doss's challenge to his credit award. Instead, the court made corrective changes to reflect our previous decision regarding Doss's term of community custody. Thus, the trial court did not exercise its independentjudgment in any way in complying with our order on remand. Accordingly, the question ofwhether Doss is entitled to additional credit is not a properly appealable issue. Affirmed.

We concur: